Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Contrary to media myth, you’re actually 62 times more likely to be killed by an Islamic jihadist than by a “right-wing extremist.” Professor Andrew Holt shows that not only did the New America Foundation wildly exaggerate the threat of “right-wing extremists,” and fudge the data to do so, it also ignored several murderous Islamic jihad attacks. The New America Foundation study was written up in the New York Times and elsewhere — the mainstream media loved it and continues to cite it to this day. This debunking will not get that kind of attention.

“Prof DEBUNKS study claiming right-wing extremists in U.S. more deadly than Islamic terrorists,” by Michael McGrady, The College Fix, January 18, 2016:

A widely touted study claiming right-wing extremism is more deadly than Islamic terrorism in the United States has been debunked by a history professor who shows that, in actuality, there have been 62 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists in the U.S. for every one American killed by right-wing extremists. Professor Andrew Holt of Florida State College at Jacksonville recently published his analysis that discredits the widespread sentiment that right-wing attackers are the deadliest domestic terrorists in the U.S.

“If you include the death totals from 9/11 in such a calculation, then there have been around 62 people killed in the United States by Islamic extremists for every one American killed by a right wing terrorist,” Holt stated in his analysis.

Holt’s analysis points out numerous flaws in the highly cited study released in 2015 by New America Foundation, which claimed 48 deaths in the U.S. were due to “far right wing attacks” while only counting 45 deaths due to “violent jihadist attacks.”

The study’s findings were not only touted by many major news outlets across the nation as proof that fears over radical Islamic terror in the U.S. are overblown, but the findings are also used today in some college classrooms as an example of Islamophobia.

But, Holt points out the foundation’s findings are based on flawed data sets.

For one, the foundation did not count the deaths on Sept. 11. Secondly, it did not factor in extraordinary security measures, such as the Patriot Act and the creation of Homeland Security, put in place after 9/11 that prevented a large number of attempted attacks by Islamic terrorists on American soil.

Moreover, the foundation’s count does not recognize “the disproportionately high number of attacks by Islamic extremists in the United States, who, even after excluding the victims of 9/11, are still responsible for around 50 percent of the total number of deaths due to extremism, even though Muslims only account for around 1 percent of the total U.S. population,” Holt states.

Underscoring all that, Holt said the foundation’s count ignored more than a half-dozen examples of radical Islamic terrorism deaths in the U.S.

One of the most glaring omissions, he noted, is the 2002 D.C. Beltway snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, who admitted to authorities that they were inspired by Osama bin Laden and sought to set up a terrorist training camp.

“Indeed, on April 22, 2005, the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed [the] death penalty on the basis that Muhammad had committed an act of terrorism,” Holt stated. “Together, Muhammad and Malvo killed at least ten people. Yet [the foundation] does not list their victims among those under the category of ‘violent jihadist attacks.’”

“If we add Muhammad and Malvo’s victims to the total number of Americans killed by Islamic extremists since 9/11, then the number killed rises to 55, a total higher than the 48 deaths they attribute to right wing extremism.”

Holt added additional deaths due to Islamic terror in the U.S. are not counted by the foundation, including:

In June of 2006 in Denver, a man shot four of his co-workers and a swat team member, killing one. He later claimed he did it because it was “Allah’s choice.” In December of 2009 in Binghamton, a Saudi Arabian graduate student named Abdulsalam S. al-Zahrani killed Richard T. Antoun, a non-Muslim Islamic studies professor who served on al-Zahrani’s dissertation committee, in revenge for “persecuted” Muslims. Prior to the killing one of al-Zahrani’s roommates tried to warn the university administration that he had been acting “like a terrorist.” In 2012 in Houston, in two separate incidents in January and in November, two people were shot to death by a Muslim extremist for their roles in his daughter’s conversion to Christianity. In March of 2013 in Ashtabula (Ohio), a Muslim convert walked into a Christian Church during an Easter service and killed his father, claiming it was “the will of Allah.” In August of 2014 in Richmond (California) killed an Ace Hardware employee by stabbing him seventeen times, claiming he was on a “mission from Allah.”

In an email interview with The College Fix, Holt emphasized that any extremist attack is disturbing and must be condemned, adding “my comments are not intended to discount the very real suffering of victims of right wing terror.”

Nevertheless, Americans have been misled by the foundation’s study and deserve an accurate picture, Holt said.

“The study has been widely reported in the mainstream press, and those reports have been widely shared on social media, often cited as evidence for the surprising claim above,” Holt told The College Fix. “… But the reality is that if you include the deaths from 9/11, then the raw and ugly numbers show that over the last 15 years more Americans have died as a result of Islamic extremism than right wing extremism by an extraordinarily lopsided ratio of more than 62 to 1.”

“Moreover, even if you exclude the deaths of 9/11 for some reason, but do not apply the very limiting parameters used in the New American study, then you still get a higher number of total U.S. deaths from Islamic extremism than from right wing extremism.”…

Amazing!! Even in the Antipodes we were bombarded with the obviously flawed “findings” of the New America Foundation Study. Yet we have heard – and I confidently predict we will hear – nothing of the professional debunking of that study. I suspect the refutation of the NAF Study will be quietly buried. Anyone with a serious interest in Jihad studies should familiarize themselves with these findings.

And I’m going to write a courteous letter to SBS (our Multi-Kulti station) and the Australian ABC to make a note of Professor Holt’s work. I will bet everyone a five-course dinner it won’t get a mention.

Nevertheless, Americans have been misled by the foundation’s study and deserve an accurate picture, Holt said.

Bravo! Bra-f***ing-vo!

Let’s see: leaving out 9/11, not accounting victims of islamic terror attacks in the US, leaving out the number of plots foiled, and not pointing out that muslims, despite being a small minority, are over-represented in the terrorist attack map? I think I pointed out most, if not all of those flaws, when this study was first mentioned.

As a political scientist myself, I wish Prof. Holt well in his researches. However, the study he debunks demonstrates some of the issues with supposedly “data-driven” or “empirical” political analysis. The [mal]administration’s “study” not only left out the 9/11 victims, but it narrowed the definition of “Islamic terrorism” (excluding Nidal Hassan’s multiple Danny Deever moment) while broadening “right wing terrorism”. Politics remains a field where words, phraseologiy, meanings expressed, and the like truly count for more than things readily quantified.

It is most noteworthy that the Leftists (such as the [mal]administration) demand “scientific proof”, but they are at the same time skillful at manipulating discourse to demonize and exclude viewpoints that dissent from their own.

Frankly, anyone who can see and hear, whether literally or figuratively, knows that Islamicist terror is far more deadly than anything the American right has produced in recent years. Add to this the fact that the Kluxers, Aryan Nations, neo-Nazis and others who support violence cannot expect much aid and comfort from official sources should the Tea Party take over; and are kept at arm’s length by most people on the right. Add as well how the Left has been trying to make Isam “respectable” ever since whenever, and you see how badly skewed any such “study” is going to be (it goes for studies on LGBT parenting, as well).

I think there is even more fundamentally wrong with this study than even Holt was able to point how. He used their premise to prove them wrong. I think their whole premise is bunk. I hope more people speak out about this and it doesn’t stop here.

As ludicrous if possible are the “studies” that lump all sorts of things into “terrorism”–ALF releasing lab animals, ELF setting fires at construction sites, ACT Up shutting down intersections, Occupy breaking windows, the anti-government group that took over the building on federal land. I am no fan of these disruptive tactics, but none of them are deadly, nor are they intended to be.

To consider these “terrorism”–and to claim this sort of thing is of more concern than bloody homicidal Jihad bent on forcing our submission to Islam–is just willful stupidity.

It would be worth noting as well that the US muslim population is only about 1%. So, f you factor in 9-11 AND population levels, you find that an individual American muslim is roughly 6200 times more likely to commit an extremist murder than an individual non-muslim American.

Important point, Steve, on the miniscule population of Muslims in this country and how that skews the numbers. Even if it were true–and it is *not*–that the “right wing” is as deadly as Jihad in the US, that would still mean that Islam is many times deadlier on a per capita basis.

And just look at nations like those in Europe–and in the Islamic world itself–to see how much deadlier things get with every rise in Muslim population.

Congratulations to Professor Holt for having the courage to do this work and publish it. For daring to challenge leftist orthodoxy, his academic peers, his College’s administration and dogmatic leftist crybullies students on campus will probably work to see him forced out of his position, tenured or not.

Looking at the data and you see pure misrepresentation. For example, the Knoxville Church shooting was domestic violence resulting from what used to be called alienation of affection as the people in the church were breaking up his marriage.

“Jim David Adkisson killed two people and injured seven others in a shooting at Tennessee Valley United Unitarian Church in July 2008. Adkisson left a letter in his SUV that expressed hatred towards liberals and gays prior to conducting the attack. Adkisson pleaded guilty in February 2009.”

But, they attribute it to a nonexistent “right wing” political agenda.
For them a bank robbery isn’t a crime, it’s a right wing political statement.

It’s the classification created to label any crime white, Christian people in a white, Christian majority country do as politically and/or religiously driven and thus downplay the religiously motivated crimes committed by muslims.

I mean, I don’t see a list of “left-wing extremist” terror attacks, even though, for example, the throwing of buckets of paint/animal blood to people wearing fur should fall under “left-wing extremism” rather than simply “terrorist attack not done by muslims”.

If conservatives are individualists and leftists are collectivists, then any racist attack is by definition, leftist violence, because racism is a form of collectivism that only sees people as groups (collectives) rather than as individuals.

Sam, “right wing extremism” can be used to describe violence by groups like the Ku Klux Klan or Neo-Nazis (never mind that most Klansmen were actually Democrats, and that both groups have lost membership to the point where they barely exist now. For instance, the National Socialist Movement (NSM) is the largest Neo-Nazi group in the United States,and it has just 400 members).

But it can also be used to describe people who peacefully join the Tea Party, believe in lower taxes and small government, are traditionally Christian, or vote Republican. It’s become a catch-all for anything Leftists do not like.

Whooo, here we go again. One of the techniques of fictive reality is to publicize a falsehood, then ignore its debunking altogether, if the falsehood is ever dubunked. And it pays, just look at how well Janet Napolitano is doing, not only financially but sitting atop the world’s largest higher education institution, and education is the key to opinion programming.

When we talk right wing extremists we’re talking white guys, and there are a helluva lot more of them in the country than Moslems. So the murder yield per Judeo-Christian white guy is miniscule compared to the murder yield done by the small number of Moslems here.

Then there is the definition of terrorism to consider. Properly that is defined as the killing of innocents to strike fear (terror) into the general population so as to push forward towards a society changing goal. When a right wing extremist goes into a Planned Parenthood clinic and kills a few workers there, that’s not the general population, the murdered are persons employed in the activity of baby killing to which the extremist violently objects.

The New America Foundation “study” is a multifaceted fake. But the name of the group who published it is not fake, it is real: a new America based on a fake reality to push an agenda with no regard for the truth or the long term well being of the country or its citizens.

The opposite of what the left/muslim alliance does… When a very well done study refutes the l/m lies, the dhimedia will pretend that it has been debunked, all the while knowing full well that they are lying through their teeth while doing so. Think Lott on guns, and any real scientist on the fraud called climate change

Of course, I had to see this for myself. Andrew Holt, Ph.D.—that’s the name of his blog—provides the full blog posting titled, “Right Wing Extremism vs. Islamic Extremism in the United States: A Look at the Numbers”

This is how I would have done the comparison.

For each act perpetrated, botched and thwarted, estimate the INTENDED result. For example, the BOTCHED February 26, 1993 mega-bomb, packed with cynanide and detonated beneath one Tower in NY City was INTENDED to topple one full tower upon the other with a hopeful deathtoll reaching 250,000. Other examples would be the Millennial plot for Los Angeles, the 2010 Times Square bomb, which was ignited but failed to denotate and a 2009 NY subway plot (Zarein Ahmedzay, Najibullah Zazi guilty pleas).

Add all those up and compare to all those by “right-wing extremists” and it should be clear to anyone.

Ibn Warraq:
The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom — freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives? A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend…Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest.

I’ve recently finished the backlog of Dr. Bill Warner’s Center for Political Islam lectures and one point he brought up a few times throughout the series was the need for allies without having to make friends with them. The USA and the USSR weren’t bosom pals during WWII considering the red scare in the prior decades and Churchill didn’t think much more of Charles de Gaul than he did of Adolf Hitler. Their differences were ultimately outweighed by the need to defeat the fascist Axis, and they didn’t go away after the second World War. The contemporaries were just intelligent enough to prioritize.

I would seem today that rather than seeing their domestic right-wings as begrudging allies against the Islamic jihad, which is intrinsically and irreparably incompatible with any political spectra in the Occident, that the left-wing factions of the West would rather see Muslims as allies against the hated right-wing.

Liberals and apologists will still apply some kind of twisted “logic” to discount these statistics. If they don’t their entire universe will unravel and they might have to actually use the brain they were given. But I am extremely grateful to Professor Holt for having the courage to tell the truth. Thank you!

Right now “right wing extremists” have taken over an unused building in a remote federal wildlife refuge in Oregon.

This has been widely denounced as “terrorism”, but the fact is that these yahoos haven’t harmed anyone and are entirely unlikely to. The official position so far seems to be to wisely wait them out.

They also have a valid point–protesting the federal takeover of ranches and other property through imminent domain. They want to restore “the people’s constitutional rights”–not destroy them like Jihadists.

I don’t consider their approach to be particularly useful to put it mildely–but to call this “terrorism” and conflate it with the wanton murder of Jihad terror is ludicrous.

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer. in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to its respectful owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.